TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998

WORKS AND UTILITIES COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 5

1Status and Reconfirmation of Storm Water Group

 2Use of Abandoned (Decommissioned) Gas Mains for Telecommunications Purposes -Agreement with Consumers Gas

 3Cleaning and Cement Mortar Relining of Existing Water Mains, Scarborough District -Contract No. 17-98, Phase II

 4Cleaning and Cement Mortar Relining of Existing Water Mains, Scarborough District -Contract No. 18-98, Phase III

 5Wastewater Treatment Agreement with Region of Peel - Outstanding Claim

 6Old Landfill Site Survey and Remediation Programs

 7Tendering of Contract for Nine Hired Garbage Packers inScarborough Community Council Area

 8Forfeiture of Tender Deposit

 9Other Items Considered by the Committee

City of Toronto

  REPORT No. 5

OF THE WORKS AND UTILITIES COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on May 20, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Betty Disero, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998

1

Status and Reconfirmation of Storm Water Group

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1)Councillors Bossons and Mammoliti be appointed to the Storm Water Group, and the Striking Committee be advised accordingly; and

(2)Mr. John Maletich be appointed as a citizen member to the Storm Water Group.")

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of:

(I)Recommendation No. (1) of the report dated May 5, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead for Water and Wastewater, viz:

"(1)the Storm Water Group, established by the former City of Toronto for the purpose of developing new and innovative methods of diverting storm water runoff from the sewer system, continue their work on an interim basis with the Terms of Reference as approved by the former Council of the City of Toronto and with current membership and staff support as required until the review process and rationalization of the existing Environmental Committees and Environmental Task Force have been completed;"

and further recommends that the membership of the group be expanded to include representatives from elsewhere in the City, and that Members of Council be invited to suggest names of citizens who could participate; and

(II)Recommendation No. (3) embodied in the communication dated April 21, 1998, from the City of Toronto Storm Water Group, viz:

"(3)the Storm Water Group meet with and coordinate planning and information with the (former Metro) Wet Weather Master Planning process and report back to the Works and Utilities Committee."

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having:

(1)recommended to the Striking Committee that Councillors Layton and Saundercook be appointed as the interim Co-Chairs of the Storm Water Group; and

(2)referred the following motion to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee:

"That the City Clerk be requested to provide clarification of the role of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team and other Committees with respect to the appointments process."

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (May 5, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Water and Wastewater:

Purpose:

To provide comments and recommendations on the April 7, 1998 communication from the (former City of Toronto) Storm Water Group to the Works and Utilities Committee.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Storm Water Group, established by the former City of Toronto for the purpose of developing new and innovative methods of diverting storm water runoff from the sewer system, continue their work on an interim basis with the Terms of Reference as approved by the former Council of the City of Toronto and with current membership and staff support as required until the review process and rationalization of the existing Environmental Committees and Environmental Task Force have been completed; and

(2)one or two City Councillors be appointed as interim Chair/Co-Chairs of the Storm Water Group.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Works and Utilities Committee, at its meeting of April 22, 1998, had before it correspondence dated April 7, 1998, from the Storm Water Group of the former City of Toronto entitled "Status and Reconfirmation of Storm Water Group" and requested that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to the May 20, 1998 meeting of Committee on this matter (Clause No.15(b) of Works and Utilities Committee Report No. 4).

The Storm Water Group (initially named Non-Structural Working Group) was established by the former City of Toronto in response to a request by the Minister of the Environment in connection with the March 21, 1996 Exemption Order under the Environmental Assessment Act for the Western Beaches Storage Tunnel.

The Terms of Reference for the Storm Water Group as requested by the Minister of the Environment and approved by the Council of the former City of Toronto are as follows:

(1)investigate, on a City-wide basis, alternative methods to reduce storm water run-off and combined sewer overflow (CSO), and to alleviate water pollution from the City's sewer system through non-structural programs;

(2)examine the feasibility of implementing non-structural solutions for storm water management at the Ellis Avenue and Howard Park Avenue storm water outlets, as specifically requested by the Minister of the Environment and stipulated in the Exemption Order for the WBST;

(3)report to the appropriate Committee of Council on recommendations for any actions to be taken with respect to implementing non-structural solutions and programs and/or carrying out studies or pilot projects;

(4)conduct all meetings in public and invite members of the public, professional and other staff members from City Departments or other agencies for presentations and participation, as appropriate; and

(5)submit to the appropriate Committee of Council an annual progress report detailing the Group's activities and achievements in pursuing non-structural alternatives.

The membership of the Storm Water Group as approved by the Council of the former City of Toronto for a term ending on November 30, 1997, is as follows:

Co-Chairs:

Former Councillor Dan Leckie

Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski

Citizen Members:

Kristina Guiguet

Robert Bartlett

John Sewell

Dalton Shipway

Joyce McLean

Karen Buck

Kevin Mercer

Karey Shinn

Peter Hare

Former Metropolitan Toronto Works Department Representative:

Pat Chessie

Waterfront Regeneration Trust Representative:

Jeff Evenson

TRCA Representative:

Sonya Meek

Former City of Toronto, Parks and Recreation Department Representative:

Murray Boyce

Former City of Toronto, City Works Services Representative:

Wayne Green

Furthermore, City Council, at its meeting of April 16, 1998, adopted the report dated March 10, 1998, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, entitled "Existing Environmental Committees and the Environmental Task Force", which sets out a process of collecting and reviewing information of the work and potential role of various environmental committees and task forces across the new City, with a view of rationalizing the existing infrastructure of citizen committees and task forces all in accordance with the Terms of Reference for the new Environmental Task Force (Clause No. 22(d) in Works and Utilities Committee Report No. 3).

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The April 7, 1998 communication from the Storm Water Group (Citizen members) requested that the Works and Utilities Committee adopt the following recommendations and our comments in this regard are as follows:

(1) "That City Council adopt the Committee Report and its recommendations as previously adopted by the Toronto Council of the former City of Toronto as per July14, 1997 minutes."

The recommendations contained in the report dated June 10, 1997 from the Commissioner of City Works Services entitled "Progress Report of the Storm Water Group" adopted, as amended, by the Council of the former City of Toronto at its meeting of July 14, 1997 (Clause 58 in City Services Committee Report No. 9), are being followed/implemented within the limits of the former City of Toronto.

The feasibility of extending the application of these recommendations across the new City of Toronto will be reviewed as part of the service levelling exercise and in connection with the development of the Wet Weather Master Plan.

(2) "That City Council reinstate the Storm Water Group as the City's primary advisory committee on storm water management with:

-the appointment of one or more City Councillors as chair(s);

-the reappointment of current members, and additional members to be considered to reflect the wider constituency of the new City; and

-staff resources, including administration services, from Parks and Recreation, Works and Emergency Services, and Urban Development and Planning to be allocated to the Committee."

As indicated above, the term of the Storm Water Group as approved by the Council of the former City of Toronto expired on November 30, 1997. It is expected that the process of reviewing and rationalizing the existing Environmental Committees and Environmental Task Force will take several months. This will seriously interrupt the ongoing work and the momentum of the Storm Water Group. Furthermore, it will prevent the Storm Water Group from providing input in the Storm Water Demonstration projects which are currently underway for the purpose of developing and testing new innovative ways of storm water diversion.

We therefore propose that the Storm Water Group be reinstated with its current membership on an interim basis until the rationalization of the existing Environmental Committees and Environmental Task Force has been completed.

(3) "That the Storm Water Group be recognized as the overseer for the work and reporting of the (former Metro) Wet Weather Master Planning Process."

As indicated above, the role of the Storm Water Group including its involvement in the Wet Weather Master Planning Process will be reviewed as part of the review process and rationalization of the existing Environmental Committees and Environmental Task Forces.

(4) "That City Council ratify the three current demonstration projects, expend the appropriate funds to get them fully operational, including monies to monitor the projects up to and upon completion."

The Council of the former City of Toronto, at its meeting of July 14, 1997, approved carrying out three Storm Water Demonstration Projects in the Moore Park, Bloor West Village and the Garrison Creek areas. These projects are to determine feasible non-structural alternatives for diverting storm water away from the combined sewer system and thereby reducing combined sewer overflows and/or improving the quality of storm water discharging to the lake and rivers (Clause 58 in City Services Committee Report No. 9). These projects are currently underway and are expected to be completed later this summer. We will be reporting to the Committee in the fall on the results of the Demonstration Projects, including any funding which may be required in future Capital and Operating budgets for implementing storm water management initiatives recommended as a result of the Demonstration Projects.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

W. Wichmann, City Engineer, Former City of Toronto,

Toronto Community Council Area.

Phone: (416) 392-7703; Fax: (416) 392-0816.

E-Mail: "wwichman@city.toronto.on.ca".

The Works and Utilities Committee also submits the following revised communication (April21, 1998) from Ms. Joyce McLean, City of Toronto Storm Water Group:

Background:

The Storm Water Group, originally called the Non-Structural Working Group, was formed as an advisory committee to the former City of Toronto in October 1996. The committee was formed pursuant to an Exemption Order issued by the Minister of Environment and Energy in 1996 for the Western Beaches Storage Tunnel full Environmental Assessment. The Committee's membership consists of individuals and representatives of agencies and community organizations with applied experience and knowledge in fields related to watershed and urban storm water management.

The Storm Water Group, co-chaired by Councillors Dan Leckie and Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, with full staff support from Parks and Recreation and City Works Services, met at least monthly from October 1996 to December 1997. In the months from October 1996 to June 1997, the Committee heard presentations and existing and proposed alternative storm water and combined sewer overflow (CSO) reduction technologies and methods. The Committee then prepared a report which Council passed on July 14, 1997 (minutes attached).

The Committee recommended that henceforth the City revise its standard operating procedures for storm water and CSO management to adopt non-structural or natural systems as the first consideration for policy and application in new buildings and future maintenance. Further to the Committee's recommendations, Council approved three demonstration projects to test and evaluate the most efficient, cost-effective methods for meeting this obligation.

Current Status:

As advised by the staff of the CAO, the Committee is seeking reinstatement to complete its mandate to serve Council as a citizen oversight on municipal storm water infrastructure and water pollution prevention. We believe that the Storm Water Group has an important role to play in providing advice, strategic direction and an oversight function regarding all wet weather planning and storm water management.

Scientists are predicting that in the next 20 years, the Great Lakes region, including Toronto, will experience changes in climate, likely to include higher average annual temperatures and more severe storm events. Thus, mechanisms to ensure that storm water is best managed at minimal cost are very prudent to consider now.

We therefore request that the Works and Utilities Committee support the following recommendations:

(1)that City Council adopt the Committee Report and its recommendations as previously adopted by Toronto City Council in the July 14, 1997 minutes;

(2)that City Council reinstate the Storm Water Group as the City's primary advisory committee on storm water management with:

-the appointment of one or more City Councillors as chair(s);

-the reappointment of current members, and additional members to be considered to reflect the wider constituency of the new City; and

-staff resources, including administration services, from Parks and Recreation, Works and Emergency Services, and Urban Development and Planning, to be allocated to the Committee; and

(3)that the Storm Water Group meet with and coordinate planning and information with the (former Metro) Wet Weather Master Planning process and report back to the Works and Utilities Committee.

On behalf of the members of the Storm Water Group, we thank you for your interest and your consideration.

Storm Water Group membership:

Rob Bartlett

Murray Boyce

Karen Buck

Pat Chessie

Jeff Evenson

Wayne Green

Kristina Guiguet

Peter Hare

Joyce McLean

Sonya Meek

Kevin Mercer

John Sewell

Karey Shinn

Dalton Shipway

--------

The following persons appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Ms. Joyce McLean, City of Toronto Storm Water Group; and

-Councillor David Miller, High Park.

(A copy of each of the attachments referred to in the foregoing communication has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Works and Utilities Committee meeting of May20, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

2

Use of Abandoned (Decommissioned) Gas Mains for

Telecommunications Purposes -

Agreement with Consumers Gas

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee again recommends the adoption of the report dated March11, 1998, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services embodied in the communication dated April21, 1998, from the City Clerk.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested that where there is no existing agreement in place, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to submit a report to the Committee on any requests by cable companies to install new equipment prior to approval, and on an overall plan for such installations.

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following communication (April 21, 1998) from the City Clerk:

City Council, at its meeting held April 16, 1998, had before it Clause No. 11 of Report No.3 of The Works and Utilities Committee, headed "Use of Abandoned (Decommissioned) Gas Mains for Telecommunications Conduit Purposes - Agreement with Consumers Gas".

Council directed that the aforementioned Clause be struck out and referred back to the Works and Utilities Committee, with a request that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services submit a further report to the Committee outlining a comprehensive policy for the use of public rights-of-way for the development of a telecommunications infrastructure network.

(Clause No. 11 of Report No. 3 of

The Works and Utilities Committee, headed

"Use of Abandoned (Decommissioned) Gas Mains for

Telecommunications Conduit Purposes - Agreement with Consumers Gas")

(City Council on April 16, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Works and Utilities Committee, with a request that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services submit a further report to the Committee outlining a comprehensive policy for the use of public rights-of-way for the development of a telecommunications infrastructure network.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To authorize an agreement between The Consumers Gas Company Limited (Consumers Gas) and the City to permit the refurbishing and use of abandoned (decommissioned) gas mains within public road allowances for the purposes of a conduit structure for fibre optic cable.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The proposal will result in revenue generation potential for the City in accordance with the formula set out in the body of this report. No costs to the City are involved.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council authorize the entering into of an agreement with The Consumers Gas Company Limited (and/or other parties as may be necessary) to permit the refurbishment and use of abandoned (decommissioned) gas mains within public road allowances for the purposes of a conduit structure for fibre optic cable, with such agreement generally containing the terms and conditions set out in this report, and such other terms and conditions as may be required by the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(2)that the City Solicitor be authorized to prepare and introduce in Council a by-law to authorize the entering into and execution of this agreement; and

(3)that the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing.

Background:

The Consumers Gas Company Limited and Metronet Communications Group Inc. have approached City staff with a proposal to utilize abandoned (decommissioned) gas mains located within public road allowances as a conduit structure for fibre optic telecommunications cable. Staff have met with representatives of the firms on a number of occasions, and based on the discussions, have concluded that the scheme is supportive of the City's dual objectives of fostering the development of a competitive, state-of-the-art telecommunications infrastructure to benefit the business community and to enhance economic development, while realizing direct revenue and services to the City.

Comments:

Introduction:

The former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting of June 23 and 24, 1997 authorized an agreement between Metronet Communications Group Inc. and the City involving:

(i)a lease of a decommissioned high pressure watermain system in the downtown core and other City-owned decommissioned pipe located within the (former) City of Toronto, in accordance with a Request for Proposals, for the purposes of installing, maintaining and operating a high speed fibre optic telecommunications network and sub-leasing space for third party-owned cables within the pipes; and

(ii)a licence by way of a Municipal Access Agreement to allow Metronet to enter upon the Public Highways under the jurisdiction of the (former) City of Toronto for the purposes of installing, maintaining and operating the network throughout the City, subject to the City's requirements and permissions for construction within the street allowance.

The Agreement that followed set out the parties' rights and obligations related to such work and included a comprehensive compensation package to the City with substantial direct revenues accruing. The Metropolitan Toronto Council, at its meeting of August 13 and 14, 1997, among other things, approved the installation of the telecommunications network within the limits of Metro roads located in the former City.

Subsequently, City Council, at its meeting of October 6 and 7, 1997, endorsed a Standard Form Municipal Access Agreement to be entered into by parties wishing to access (former) City of Toronto streets for the purposes of installing telecommunications cables and auxiliary equipment.

Proposal:

Consumers Gas and Metronet Communications Group Inc. wish to enter into an agreement to utilize abandoned (decommissioned) gas mains in the public road allowances for the purposes of providing a conduit structure to carry fibre optic telecommunications cables, and require the City's consent to this arrangement. The Consumers Gas arrangement with Metronet involves two aspects:

(i)lease of the abandoned (decommissioned) gas mains on a non-exclusive basis, but with Metronet having first rights of refusal. Compensation would be in the range of $2.00 to $2.50; and per metre of pipe per annum which reflects the return on active gas main to Consumers Gas; and

(ii)under a separate agreement, a non-regulated affiliate, Consumers Gas Energy Inc., would act as Metronet's project (construction) manager or agent for work related to the decommissioned gas mains and handle aspects such as construction, maintenance, permitting operations, locates, and infrastructure management. A fee would be involved. Consumers Gas representatives advise that the term of such agreement would not be dependent on the term of the pipe access agreement. In this regard, I also understand that charges by Consumers Gas to Metronet would be competitive with other contractors and would not involve any "surcharge" in lieu of higher lease fees for Item (i) above.

Consumers Gas states that about 42 km of abandoned gas main would likely be used for the Metronet network. Metronet would be responsible for all of the pipe refurbishment costs, but would not take ownership of the pipes. Metronet would own appurtenances installed on the pipes as well as the fibre optic network, including telecommunications improvements. In the event small portions of the pipes are missing, the links that would be constructed to connect the pipes would be deemed to be part of the abandoned gas main. Letters of Intent have been entered into between Consumers and Metronet, and resolution of the City participation remains the last outstanding item to completing these arrangements.

City Interests:

In addition to the obvious advantages to the proponents of the proposed use of abandoned gas mains for telecommunications purposes (in Consumers Gas case, the ability to realize a return on an unutilized asset, and for Metronet, the ability to deploy its telecommunications at a quicker rate with potentially far less capital cost), the concept, in principle, also holds promise from the City's perspective.

In accordance with the City's agreement with Metronet, payments are made to the City in part based on Metronet's revenues. If these can be accelerated by virtue of the network being installed more efficiently, then the City will benefit. Of course, this is also consistent with the overriding objective of facilitating a competitive telecommunications infrastructure in Toronto and the resulting economic development enhancement. Finally, the use of the existing abandoned structures in the streets will result in far less disruption of the streets than would otherwise be possible if new conduit were to be laid. This will reduce construction impacts on pedestrian and vehicular flows and avoid damaging the pavements.

Terms of Agreement:

The following list outlines the key issues and basic terms that should be addressed in an agreement between Consumers Gas and the City for the grant of permission to utilize decommissioned gas mains in the City streets for telecommunications purposes.

(1)Permission to use the decommissioned gas mains for telecommunications purposes would only be granted to parties with a valid Municipal Access Agreement (and only in the areas where the MAA is applicable) with the City, and would be non-exclusive, to ensure that only authorized parties are carrying out work within the public road allowance.

(2)City staff are of the view that Consumers Gas has statutory rights to be in Toronto road allowances for purposes of distributing gas, but this does not extend to any other unrelated use for these pipes. Accordingly, the agreement should limit the use of the decommissioned gas mains only to telecom purposes. Consumers Gas will be responsible to secure any regulatory or other approval (if any) required to authorize this initiative.

(3)The issue of co-ordinating underground road allowance space, particularly in the highly congested downtown area, is very important. We do not want Consumers Gas to "reactivate" the substantial abandoned gas main network on the basis that there may be an opportunity to use it at some undefined future time for revenue generating purposes unrelated to gas distribution. Co-operation amongst all utilities operating within the tight confines of the road allowance is essential to preserve efficiencies for all. Consumers Gas has acknowledged this issue, noting that the plan now involves approximately 42 km of pipe, and have pledged that requests by other utilities to install plant in an abandoned gas corridor would be "dealt with reasonably". From the City's perspective, the agreement must contain the provision that unless the abandoned main has already been refurbished or a plan is actively being developed (i.e., installation within a specified period of time) to do so, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has the right, in his sole discretion, to reallocate the corridor for other municipal or utility purposes.

(4)Permitting and Occupancy of the Street Allowance - Works in the street allowance would be subject to all of the applicable municipal by-laws, usual payments, taxes, fees and permit approval requirements. Consumers Gas would be subject to all of the requirements and conditions for this undertaking that are currently in effect relative to its gas system in the streets.

(5)Compensation - It should be recognized that entering into an agreement with Consumers Gas to permit the use of abandoned gas pipes for telecommunications purposes would not affect the revenue or dark fibre provisions the City receives from the telecom companies through its lease/licence agreement with Metronet or any future Municipal Access Agreements. On the other hand, staff feel that the City should also participate directly in some reasonable manner in the revenue generation potential of the abandoned gas mains given that Consumers Gas has the ability to generate these additional revenues only by virtue of the fact that it occupies valuable space in the public highways with plant that was originally intended to distribute gas.

Consumers Gas has offered to pay the City an annual fee of $1.00 per metre of refurbished decommissioned gas main, based on the municipal taxation rate currently payable on a four-inch diameter active plastic gas pipe. In view of the payment to be received by Consumers, stated to be in the range of $2.00 to $2.50 per metre per annum, I am prepared to recommend acceptance of a fee within this general order of magnitude. Consumers has indicated that the proposed fee to be charged to Metronet reflects the return it receives currently on its active gas distribution network. To ensure that all of the above parameters remain in relative balance throughout the term of the agreement, while maintaining the general relationship proposed by Consumers, however, I would suggest that the fee to be paid to the City for the use of refurbished decommissioned gas main for telecommunications purposes in the road allowances be set at the greater of:

(i)the applicable taxation rate of an active four-inch diameter plastic gas pipe; or

(ii)50 percent of the gross per meter per annum fee (excluding taxes) Consumers Gas charges the telecom operator.

The fee would be exclusive of any other applicable taxes that are currently in effect, or may be imposed in the future by any regulatory body, with such taxes being the responsibility of Consumers Gas and/or the telecom operator. Further, in order to ensure that the per metre fee component is fair and reflective of its value, the agreement with the City should include an undertaking from Consumers Gas that any party seeking access to the decommissioned gas mains would be charged in accordance with the principle set out earlier in this report.

At the time of submission of its annual fee, Consumers Gas would submit appropriate documentation and plans outlining the extent of the system. Confirmation provisions should also be incorporated in the agreement.

(6)In the event an abandoned gas main parallels a decommissioned City watermain and Metronet has not utilized the full capacity of the watermain, the City should receive compensation at a rate equivalent to the City lease with Metronet. This provision may require the involvement of the telecom provider and not Consumers Gas directly.

(7)With respect to the construction of new links to connect breaks or other gaps in decommissioned gas lines, for the purposes of this agreement, such links will be deemed to be part of the refurbished gas pipe and subject to the City fee if they are also subject to Consumers Gas per metre fee charged to the telecom operator.

(8)City use of capacity in refurbished gas pipe: staff have requested that should the City, at its sole option, wish to utilize sections of decommissioned gas pipe to install fibre optic cable and appurtenances for its own non-commercial purposes, it should have the opportunity to do so subject to paying a reasonable amount to refurbish the pipe, but not the per metre fee. Of course, the Consumers Gas fee to the City would also not be applicable in this instance.

(9)The City, by entering into this agreement would not be representing or assuring that any particular alignment or routing of a segment of abandoned gas pipe would be usable or approved for the purpose of telecommunications conduit.

(10)Term: it is proposed that the agreement be based on a 15-year or lesser term, with renewal considerations.

(11)The ability of Consumers Gas to assign the agreement to a subsidiary or affiliate provided that Consumers Gas remains responsible for the fulfilment of the terms is generally acceptable.

(12)Consumers Gas will agree to fully indemnify the City against all loss and liability, including environmental liability stemming from the permission granted under this agreement.

(13)Consumers Gas shall provide proof of insurance in a form and amount satisfactory to the Chief Financial Officer and City Treasurer, including naming the City as an additional named insured.

(14)The agreement shall contain provisions relating to expiry and termination, including the right for the City to require that all equipment be removed from the pipes, or the pipes relocated and the public highway restored to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(15)The agreement will contain any other provisions deemed appropriate by the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Conclusion:

Staff are of the view that the proposal by Consumers Gas and Metronet to utilize abandoned gas mains within public road allowances as a telecommunication conduit structure, under the general framework set out in this report, is a positive initiative for the proponents and the City in terms of facilitating the deployment of a current, competitive telecommunications infrastructure in the City. It will achieve these objectives with less disruption to the street and sidewalk system than would otherwise be possible if new construction were involved. The proposal will enable the efficient use and conservation of structures that are presently located within the road allowance, but not currently in active use. Finally, the City will derive direct revenue from the plan.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Andrew Koropeski, Director

Infrastructure Planning and Transportation

Toronto City Works Services

Phone: (416) 392-7711.

The Works and Utilities Committee also submits the following report (May 14, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To respond to a request from City Council that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services submit a further report outlining a comprehensive policy for the use of public rights-of-way for the development of a telecommunications infrastructure network.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That Clause No. 11 in Report No. 3 of The Works and Utilities Committee, recommending that the City enter into an agreement with Consumers Gas Company Limited to permit the refurbishment and use of abandoned (decommissioned) gas mains within public road allowances as a conduit structure, be approved.

Background:

The Works and Utilities Committee, at its meeting of March 25, 1998, in considering a report (March11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, recommended that the report be adopted in order to authorize an agreement between the Consumers Gas Company Limited and the City to permit the refurbishing and use of abandoned (decommissioned) gas mains within the public road allowances for the purposes of a conduit structure for fibre optic cable. City Council, at its meeting of April 16, 1998, struck out the recommendation and referred the Clause back to the Works and Utilities Committee with a request that the Commissioner submit a further report outlining a comprehensive policy for the use of public rights-of-way for the development of a telecommunications infrastructure network (Clause No. 11 of Report No. 3 of The Works and Utilities Committee).

Comments:

The formulation and evolution of the City's involvement and encouragement of state-of-the-art telecommunications and high speed data information infrastructure can be traced back to the early 1990's. Particularly with the onset of the economic downturn, it was recognized that Toronto and its businesses faced unprecedented economic challenges and must pursue every opportunity to enhance our competitive positions. The focus was initially the Central Area and the importance of ensuring that unique and persuasive features continue to be offered to maintain a viable business climate in light of incentives being promoted by other municipalities regionally, nationally and outside the country.

The backdrop for this municipal perspective is a telecommunications industry that is undergoing massive change and growth, in terms of technological advances and the convergence of mediums, as well as the regulatory environment. Deregulation initially saw the introduction of competitive long distance services in the early 1990's and, as of this year, the authorization of local competitive carriers. While the regulation of telecommunications is within the purview of the federal government, the municipality does have some authority in terms of approving installations within its rights-of-way and setting out conditions for this type of work.

The fundamental shifts in the competitive telecommunications field and the demand for increased bandwidth and a wide range of voice, video and data services from business have directly led to increasing pressure to develop new networks, based largely on fibre optic technology. One of the key considerations in terms of the feasibility and economic viability of developing such networks is the ability to actually implement a system without incurring the exorbitant costs involved with underground construction in highly congested areas, and of course minimize disruption such construction would have on pedestrian activity and traffic movements.

City's Role:

In 1992, staff of the former City of Toronto sought authority from Council to prepare appropriate specifications and issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to gauge the interest of the telecommunications industry and establish the conditions under which a communications/data information system could be developed in the downtown core. It was noted that a high pressure water main system comprised of 200 mm to 500 mm diameter pipes built between 1908 and 1932 as a fire fighting network had recently been abandoned and appeared to be ideal as a conduit structure in the core. The conduit system provided by the abandoned water mains could likely be augmented by other abandoned infrastructure such as gas mains or sewers.

Although some delays were incurred for a variety of reasons, an RFP was issued in late 1996. The explicit goals of the exercise and the basis of the City's telecommunications policies and use of the rights-of-way for such purposes were two-fold:

(i) fostering the development of a competitive, state-of-the-art telecommunications structure to benefit the business community and to enhance economic development; and

(ii) realizing direct revenue and services to the City, recognizing the value in the abandoned pipe systems and the City road allowances.

As a result of submissions received in response to the proposal call, an extensive evaluation and negotiation led the former Toronto City Council in June 1997 to authorize an agreement with Metronet Communications Group Inc., granting a lease of the decommissioned water main system and licence by way of a Municipal Access Agreement to allow Metronet to enter upon the public highways under the jurisdiction of the former City of Toronto to install, maintain and operate a network. The former Metropolitan Council also endorsed the agreement for their roads within the former City boundaries.

Facilitating Competition:

The agreement with Metronet relating to the Municipal Access provisions is non-exclusive. Access by other competitors is also accommodated. With respect to the lease portion for the water main system, terms of the agreement limit the capacity that Metronet may use for its own purposes and require sub-leasing to third parties for the purposes of installing their fibre networks. The agreement also establishes certain performance levels and penalties if such levels are not met to ensure a viable competitive telecommunications network is actually constructed and operational. Finally, certain technical specifications are stipulated to ensure that state-of-the-art technology is installed.

More importantly from a competitive perspective, the former City Council directed staff to develop a standard form Municipal Access Agreement to be entered into by other companies wishing access to the street allowance for the purposes of installing, maintaining and operating telecommunications networks. By working with the terms of the Metronet agreement, the objective in this regard is to facilitate access for legitimate competitors in a consistent, equitable manner. This was approved by Council in October 1997, and also endorsed by the Metropolitan Council.

Direct City Benefits:

The agreement negotiated with Metronet provides substantial benefits to the City in terms of payments for the rights to access the public highways and the lease of the pipe system, and facilities and services to meet the City's own corporate telecommunications needs.

With respect to the former, the City is entitled to revenues from Metronet and third-party lease fees based on the lengths of cable installed, a minimum annual pre-payment and a proportion of the firm's gross revenues generated from the Toronto network. A combined minimum amount of $10 million is guaranteed over the first five years of the agreement. (Staff would be pleased to advise Councillors of the details of the business arrangements at an in-camera session, as non-disclosure provisions in the contract do not permit us to release these figures.)

The City's corporate telecommunications needs are also addressed in the agreement. A "Dark Fibre Licence" allocates dark fibre strands for municipal purposes up to the full length of the Metronet fibre backbone, in locations, where and when the City specifies. As well, the agreement entitles the City to the company's "lit" fibre services at the best industry price. Corporate telecommunications is within the purview of the Commissioner of Corporate Services. This is one of the myriad of municipal activities that is being assessed to achieve efficiencies and savings under amalgamation. The tools provided through the Municipal Access Agreements with telecom carriers will be of substantial value in this regard.

Municipal Access Agreements (MAA):

As noted above, the former City of Toronto and Metropolitan Councils approved a standard form MAA which extended the principles negotiated with Metronet. These are consistent with and supportive of the dual goals of encouraging a competitive, state-of-the-art telecommunication infrastructure in Toronto, and bringing direct revenues and services to the City. The approved arrangement requires an annual payment of 2 percent of a firm's gross receipts generated from a Toronto network up to the year 2001 and 3 percent per year thereafter. Minimum levels are also established at $20.00 per metre of cable in the downtown, and $10.00 per metre beyond.

At the present time, the Metronet agreement and approved standard form MAA is applicable only within the boundaries of the former City of Toronto and former Metropolitan roads. Metronet is aggressively pursuing the expansion of its network in 1998, and other parties have expressed a preliminary level of interest in MAAs. In principle, I am of the view that the agreement provisions should be extended to cover the entire City, and I will be reporting in due course on the appropriate terms. The same fundamental objectives that underlie the current agreements should continue to be the basis for these extensions.

Regulatory Environment:

Regulation of the telecommunications industry, and more particularly rights and responsibilities associated with access to municipal road allowances, is entwined in a complex array of federal and provincial legislation. Several contentious issues remain to be tested and resolved, largely around municipalities' authority to impose fees. On February 6, 1998, the Province passed Regulation 34/98 under the Municipal Act. The effect of this regulation is to prohibit municipalities in Ontario from using the user fee provisions to charge fees to a "person who owns or operates a telecommunications business" with respect to equipment to be located on a municipal highway which will be used as part of the telecommunications business. The City Solicitor has advised that this regulation does not affect the existing Metronet agreement, which was authorized by private legislation obtained by the former City of Toronto, but shall need to be considered with respect to the extension of that agreement or the entering into new agreements with telecommunications providers which extend beyond the boundaries of the former City of Toronto. This regulation does not affect the City's ability to impose fees upon Consumers Gas as recommended, since Consumers Gas is not operating "a telecommunications business".

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) has taken a lead role in advocating the interests of its members through its Sub-Committee on Telecommunications chaired by Councillor Howard Moscoe. Initially the concerns stemmed from cable television operations and the lack of clear direction with respect to the fee issue, and to a lesser extent the local phone companies (which are subject to a 5 percent gross receipts tax). However, the recent advent of local competition has introduced significant complications.

The principles that have evolved for Toronto are very similar to those advanced by the FCM. In fact, the FCM has developed a model agreement based on the following:

(1) municipal governments must have the ability to control the number and types of aboveground telecommunications pedestals, kiosks, etc., and the location of underground infrastructure;

(2) the use of municipal rights-of-way by telecommunications companies must not impose financial costs on municipal governments and taxpayers;

(3) municipal governments must not be responsible for the costs of relocating telecommunications infrastructure if relocation is required for planning or other reasons deemed necessary by the municipal government;

(4) municipal governments must not be liable for any economic loss, legal costs or physical restoration costs resulting from the disruption of telecommunications services arising out of the actions of a municipal government unless grossly negligent; and

(5) municipal governments must receive revenues over and above their direct costs in providing access to rights-of-way as proper compensation for the use of municipal property for profit.

These provisions, as well as other significant enhancements, are secured in the Toronto agreement and standard form MAA.

I note that the City Solicitor will be addressing legal issues related to telecommunication installations at the appropriate time and likely in conjunction with my reporting on the extension of the existing terms and conditions discussed above.

Co-ordination of Utilities:

One of the key concerns with the installation of telecommunications networks in the road allowances, particularly in the congested downtown core and high density sub-centres throughout the City, is the physical space constraints. In this regard, the agreements do not guarantee that a corridor will be available in a location the firm wishes to use. Use of the public highway will be under the same conditions as any other private entity or utility. The firms will have to apply for and obtain a street allowance construction permit, street occupation permit, pavement cut permit and public utility co-ordinating committee approval. Work methods will have to conform with standard City of Toronto construction guidelines and specifications including requirements for the installation of underground services. Further, upon completion of any construction, installation, maintenance or operation of the telecommunications system, the public highway will be restored to a safe and proper condition to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services. All permit fees and regulatory taxes which may be imposed will be borne by the firms and are exclusive of revenues accruing to the City under the MAA.

The firms will pay any costs incurred by the City or a utility company for the construction, maintenance or repair of its facilities damaged or disturbed arising from the implementation, operation or abandonment of the network. Infrastructure installed and operated by a firm which interferes with other services located within the highway may be removed and/or relocated at the discretion of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services at the expense of the firm.

Consumers Gas Proposal:

My report of March 11, 1998, outlines in some detail the proposal of Consumers Gas seeking permission for the refurbishment and use of abandoned (decommissioned) gas mains within public road allowances as a conduit structure for fibre optic cables.

This proposal is entirely consistent and complementary with the overall principles for a competitive telecommunications industry for Toronto. The use of existing abandoned structures in the streets will result in far less disruption than would otherwise be possible if new conduit were to be installed. This will reduce construction impacts on pedestrian and vehicular flows and avoid damaging the pavements.

The proposal also involves an offer of direct revenue to the City. Although the amount would not be large, it is over and above the revenues that would be paid by the telecom carriers pursuant to their MAAs. Accordingly, it would be in the City's interests to authorize this proposal.

Conclusions:

The consideration of telecommunications networks within the public road allowances of the City of Toronto has been guided by the dual goals of fostering the development of a competitive, state-of-the art telecommunications infrastructure to benefit the business community and to enhance economic development, and realizing direct revenues and services to the City.

Deregulation in the telecommunications marketplace coupled with escalating demand for increased bandwidth has led to a great deal of interest in the installation of fibre networks within road allowances. While it has been the direction of the previous Councils to facilitate this, significant effort has been made to do this in an orderly fashion while recognizing the value of the City's assets. A competitive bid process set the framework for the business arrangements and terms and conditions related to use of the streets for these purposes, and in turn formed the basis for a standard form Municipal Access Agreement.

This activity has set the stage for Toronto to become a leader in competitive telecommunications and bandwidth services. In addition to facilitate implementation, the City has secured substantial benefits in direct revenues and services to meet its own corporate needs. These provisions should be extended to areas of the City where they are not currently applicable. The Consumers Gas proposal to use decommissioned gas mains as a conduit structure advances these goals and should be endorsed.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Andrew Koropeski, Director

Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division

Phone: 392-7711.

3

Cleaning and Cement Mortar Relining of

Existing Water Mains, Scarborough District -

Contract No. 17-98, Phase II

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to award Contract No. 17-98 for the cleaning and cement mortar relining of existing cast iron water mains throughout various locations within the City of Toronto, Scarborough District.

Funding Sources:

Funds are available in the 1998 Capital Budget under the former Scarborough Public Utilities Commission and included in the Water and Wastewater Program for 1998.

Funds were also approved for the 1998 Budget under the former Scarborough Public Utilities Commission.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Contract No. 17-98, for the cleaning and cement mortar relining of cast iron water mains in the Scarborough District, be awarded to Fer-Pal Construction Limited, for the Total Price of $1,718,522.72 including the Goods and Services Tax; and

(2)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

On April 16, 1998, the Commission Secretaries Office of the Corporate Support Division, Scarborough Office, opened the following tenders for Contract No. 17-98:

Representatives of the Scarborough District Water Construction and Maintenance Department have reviewed the low bid tender submitted by Fer-Pal Construction Limited. We are satisfied that this company has met the contractual requirements as set out in the tender document, and has the capability to carry out the work as specified.

There were no irregularities in the prices submitted.

Comments and Justification:

This project is the second of three phases for the water main rehabilitation of existing cast iron water mains within the Scarborough District for the 1998 fiscal year. All three phases will consist of approximately 16 kms of water main to be cleaned and cement lined. The location of the area to be relined in this second phase is encompassed by Victoria Park Avenue easterly to Birchmount Road and from St. Clair Avenue northerly to Eglinton Avenue.

As in the past, the work is required in order to provide the residents of the City of Toronto, Scarborough District, with the highest quality of drinking water by eliminating iron deposits from the interior walls of the water main system. Moreover, pressure and fire flows are improved as a result of this work.

Conclusions:

It is concluded that Contract No. 17-98 should be awarded to Fer-Pal Construction Limited for the cleaning and cement mortar relining of existing cast iron water mains at various locations within the City of Toronto, Scarborough District.

Contact Name and Telephone Numbers:

Mr. Martin Bugden, Manager,

Water Construction and Maintenance Department,

Telephone No.: (416) 285-2002;

or

Mr. Louie Magurno, C.E.T.

Contract Administrator,

Telephone No.: (416) 285-2012.

4

Cleaning and Cement Mortar Relining of

Existing Water Mains, Scarborough District -

Contract No. 18-98, Phase III

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to award Contract No. 18-98 for the cleaning and cement mortar relining of existing cast iron water mains throughout various locations within the City of Toronto, Scarborough District.

Funding Sources:

Funds are available in the 1998 Capital Budget under the former Scarborough Public Utilities Commission and included in the Water and Wastewater Program for 1998.

Funds were also approved for the 1998 Budget under the former Scarborough Public Utilities Commission.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Contract No. 18-98, for the cleaning and cement mortar relining of cast iron water mains in the Scarborough District, be awarded to Fer-Pal Construction Limited, for the Total Price of $1,637,132.10 including the Goods and Services Tax; and

(2)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

On April 30, 1998, the Commission Secretaries Office of the Corporate Support Division, Scarborough Office, opened the following tenders for Contract No. 18-98:

Representatives of the Scarborough District Water Construction and Maintenance Department have reviewed the low bid tender submitted by Fer-Pal Construction Limited. We are satisfied that this company has met the contractual requirements as set out in the tender document, and has the capability to carry out the work as specified.

There were no irregularities in the prices submitted.

Comments and Justification:

This project is the last of three phases for the water main rehabilitation of existing cast iron water mains within the Scarborough District for the 1998 fiscal year. All three phases consist of approximately 16 kms of water main to be cleaned and cement lined. The areas to be relined are located in four sections within the Scarborough District, the first being bounded by Pharmacy Avenue easterly to Warden Avenue north of Huntingwood Drive. The second area is in the northwest quadrant of Neilson Road and Military Trail. The next section is in the southwest quadrant of Kingston Road and Livingston Road, and the fourth section is Wallsend Road which is located east of Manse Road and south of Coronation Drive.

As in the past, the work is required in order to provide the residents of the City of Toronto, Scarborough District, with the highest quality of drinking water by eliminating iron deposits from the interior walls of the water main system. Moreover, pressure and fire flows are improved as a result of this work.

Conclusions:

It is concluded that Contract No. 18-98 should be awarded to Fer-Pal Construction Limited for the cleaning and cement mortar relining of existing cast iron water mains at various locations within the City of Toronto, Scarborough District.

Contact Name and Telephone Numbers:

Mr. Martin Bugden, Manager,

Water Construction and Maintenance Department,

Telephone No.: (416) 285-2002;

or

Mr. Louie Magurno, C.E.T.

Contract Administrator,

Telephone No.: (416) 285-2012.

--------

Ms. Joyce McLean, City of Toronto Storm Water Group, appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

5

Wastewater Treatment Agreement with

Region of Peel - Outstanding Claim

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May4, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Water and Wastewater:

Purpose:

To obtain approval to settle an outstanding claim with the Region of Peel for wastewater treatment services rendered since January 1976, but without compensation by the City of Toronto, formerly Metro Toronto.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

A liability was set up in the 1997 Current Operating Budget - Appropriation 210 - Treatment, to provide funding for this expenditure. There is no material impact on the 1998 Current Operating Budget.

Recommendation:

That we be authorized to process payment to the Region of Peel, in the amount of $689,973.34 for the treatment of wastewater for the period from January 1, 1976, to December 31, 1997. The calculation is based on the estimated flows and applicable rates for each year.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On December 10, 1997, Metropolitan Council, by adoption of Clause No. 4 of Report No. 13 of The Environment and Public Space Committee, granted authorization to commence negotiations for the settlement of treatment costs relating to a draft agreement prepared in December 1974.

On May 13, 1969, Metropolitan Council, by adoption of Clause No. 10 of Report No. 6 of The Works Committee, authorized entering into a reciprocal agreement with the Ontario Water Resources (now the Region of Peel) for the treatment of sewage. In this agreement, flow from a portion of the City of Toronto is directed to the Lakeview Treatment Plant in Peel Region. The City of Toronto also accepts flow from portions of the Region of Peel, which is treated at our Humber Treatment Plant. Both flows are metered, billed and reconciled on a monthly basis. The current rate is 24.40 cents per cubic metre. The same rate is applied to both streams.

The Region of Peel's claim relates to an additional connection, servicing a parcel of land in Etobicoke. The connection was commissioned in 1976, but billing was not instituted as the agreement was never executed. We have reviewed the opinions from both the City of Toronto's Legal Department and the Region of Peel's Legal Counsel. Based on this information, it was concluded that the City of Toronto was in fact liable for services rendered by the Lakeview Treatment Plant.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Not applicable.

Conclusions:

The aforementioned connection still exists and will continue to operate permanently. The City of Toronto Legal Department, based on the Metropolitan Council report adopted on December 10, 1997, and the settlement of this claim, will consolidate the existing service agreements. Payment of the claim will release the City of Toronto of all liabilities relating to this connection.

Contact Name:

Mr. R. M. Pickett, Director,

Water Pollution Control Division,

Telephone: (416) 392-8230,

E-Mail: bob_pickett@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

6

Old Landfill Site Survey and Remediation Programs

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the report dated May7, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management; and further recommends that the Porter site in the York District be treated as a priority due to its proximity to a school.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in conjunction with other appropriate departments, to submit a report to the Committee within three months with an interim list of old landfill sites.

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (May 7, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management:

Purpose:

This report discusses the issues of risk associated with known old landfill sites within City boundaries, describes the existing risk management programs currently addressing these issues in Scarborough District, and proposes a proactive position to initiate risk management initiatives dealing with old landfill sites across the City.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The approved 1998 Solid Waste Management Capital Works program identifies three projects which address landfill site risk issues.

(1)Project SW605-Perpetual Care for Metro's closed sites $3,665,000.00 (from reserve);

(2)Project SW409-Old Landfill Site Remediation, Scarborough District $700,000.00 (capital requirement); and

(3)Project SW410-Old Landfill Site Survey, Scarborough District, $300,000.00 (capital requirement).

Sufficient funds are available to proceed with these three programs as they apply to Metro's 14 closed sites and Scarborough's 25 known old sites.

No funds have been allocated for creating and executing a risk management program for the remaining 38 old landfill sites known to exist in other City districts.

The proposed expansion of the site investigation in 1998 is estimated at $200,000.00 and funding will be found within the Solid Waste Management approved 1998 budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council adopt a proactive approach to addressing the risks and issues associated with all old landfill sites across the City;

(2)staff proceed to expand existing Metro and Scarborough programs by conducting initial site assessments and proceeding through to the development of remedial options and action plan reports for known or suspected old landfill sites in other Districts;

(3)staff report back starting in 1999 on the risk evaluation and site status and identify whether any remedial action needs to be accelerated and included in the capital program or funded from alternate sources; and

(4)all technical and professional support required be supplied from within existing staff where possible; outside consultants to be engaged to conduct non-intrusive investigations and report on risks.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Human health and safety, environmental impairment and corporate (City) risk are issues associated with old landfill sites on both City property and privately owned sites containing municipal waste dumped by the six former municipalities.

Over the years, household and commercial refuse, as well as construction/demolition type materials, were disposed of at various landfill sites operated by Area Municipalities and Metropolitan Toronto. These sites were usually operated under an agreement between the municipality and site owner, or were owned and operated by the municipality.

Disposal activities conducted before the 1940's typically included minimal amounts of organic (putrescible) material. Sites were usually burned on a frequent basis leaving only ash, metal and glass refuse.

During the 1940's and 1950's, sites received increasing amounts of organic material as well as commercial and some industrial refuse. Burning operations were largely curtailed by the mid 1950's, therefore the organic material was allowed to decompose to create liquid (leachate) and gas (methane) by-products.

Most sites in operation prior to the mid 1960's were opportunistic sites utilizing existing valley lands, lowland areas and quarry pits. Site operation practices were unregulated and varied greatly between sites and owners. Most sites were small in size (0.5 to 5 ha).

The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto was created in 1953. Metro took responsibility for garbage disposal in 1967 and used engineered land filling operations that were considered to be the

best practices of the time. At that time, Area Municipalities ceased filling operations at their own sites.

In 1971, Provincial legislation was enacted to require that a Certificate of Approval (C of A) be issued for the operation of a waste disposal site. The conditions set within the C of A dictated a standard of care that was to be conducted during filling operations. When filling operations ceased, the site had to be officially closed and a perpetual care program enacted to minimize long-term leachate and gas emission problems.

The Ministry of the Environment conducted a province-wide survey in 1981 to identify all known landfill sites.

The 1991 updated list identifies 77 known sites within the City boundary.

York 0North York13

Toronto 2East York25

Etobicoke12Scarborough25

Metro currently has 14 known landfill sites, within the City, that are maintained under their perpetual care program which involves scheduled monitoring and maintenance. A map is attached as Appendix"A".

There are at least 63 other known sites across the City that were operated before the legislation was created. These uncertified sites are referred to as 'old' landfill sites.

The sites that are owned by the City, or that have been used by the City, may constitute a potential risk to the City as imposed by adverse effects (both measurable and perceived) on human health or the environment.

The adverse effects, caused by on-site contaminants and decomposing waste, include:

(i)human health and safety that is affected directly by exposure to contaminants on-site, and/or explosion hazard;

(ii)animal and plant health may be affected directly which then indirectly affects humans or commercial processes;

(iii)general (unspecified) "environmental degradation" which has relative value only in comparison to surrounding properties or because of unique environmental attributes; and

(iv)failure to contain all contamination on-site creates potential liability with surrounding property owners.

The degree of contamination on a property is not static in nature:

(i)contaminants may interact with one another and create new types of contamination; and

(ii)transport and migration of contaminants exhibit dynamic seasonal and annual trends.

Individual claims against the former City of Scarborough, by owners of properties abutting old landfill sites, has reached as high as $50 million.

Corporate efforts to settle these claims quickly revealed the value in having effective risk management programs to address old landfill site issues. Scarborough's old landfill site survey and remediation programs (established in 1992) have currently investigated most of the 25 known sites and have proceeded to remediate the top priority sites. Survey, remediation and land use control options are continuing to be applied to the remaining sites as needed. Long-term monitoring of the sites is being conducted to verify the effectiveness of remedial and control actions.

Establishing risk management procedures (see Table 1) and maintaining environmental liability insurance are two fundamental components of dealing with legal issues involving the public and regulatory agencies.

In order to identify the activities associated with the ideal assessment, remediation and monitoring of an old landfill site, the table summarizes the activities and remediation programs.

Table 1: Long-Term Schedule for Old Landfill Risk Management

* Total costs per site can be offset by developing partnerships with adjacent property owners.

The City can consider a few options for dealing with the old landfill sites.

Option 1 - Status Quo:

(a)Resolve that the existing landfill programs continue as proposed, and as funded, without increasing their scope to include any other sites; and

(b)staff to apply contingency plans, land use control options and emergency response action plans to sites within the existing programs but not to extend these activities to sites in other districts.

If Option 1 is chosen, the potential City risk issues at sites in other districts will not be addressed. Emergency response and contingency plans will not be available for immediate use in other districts.

No additional funds are required for 1998.

Option 2 - Assess and Monitor:

(a)To maintain the Perpetual Care and Remediation programs and to proactively extend the scope (beginning in 1998) of the old landfill survey program to include sites from other districts by:

(i)initiating site identification;

(ii)conducting site investigations; and

(iii)producing risk evaluation and site status reports;

(b)staff to:

(i)apply contingency plans, land use control options and emergency response action plans to sites within the existing programs;

(ii)initiate site surveys in other districts;

(iii)seek and negotiate partnerships with abutting property owners; and

(iv)extend contingency plans, land use control options and emergency response action plans to these additional sites as required.

If Option 2 is chosen, the potential City risk issues will be addressed by proactively providing site surveys in all districts and actively seeking partnerships with abutting property owners.

Immediate funding implications for 1998, above the existing funding, include an additional $200 K for initiating site identification in other districts. No intrusive site investigation is proposed for 1998.

Long-term funding (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002), including site investigation, risk evaluation and status reporting, is estimated to be $600 K per year above the proposed funding for existing programs.

Sufficient funds are available in Solid Waste Management's reserve account for perpetual care of landfills.

Option 3 - Assess and Remediate:

(a)Maintain the Perpetual Care program and to proactively extend the scope of the old landfill site survey and remediation programs to include sites from all districts by:

(i)initiating site identification (beginning in 1998);

(ii)conducting site investigation (beginning in 1999);

(iii)producing risk evaluation and site status reports (beginning in 1999); and

(iv)implementation of remedial actions, on a site by site basis (beginning 2000).

(b)staff to:

(i)continue with the Perpetual Care program, as proposed; and

(ii)apply all survey and remediation activities to sites in all districts.

If Option 3 is chosen, the potential City risk issues will be addressed and site remediation will be achieved on a continued basis. The advantage of this option is that potential public and regulatory agency legal issues will be minimized, and that land use opportunities may be realized at an early stage.

Immediate funding implications for 1998, above the existing funding, include an additional $200 K for site identification in other districts.

Long-term funding (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002), including remediation, is estimated to range from $3,900,000.00 to $38,400,000.00 above the proposed funding for existing programs.

Conclusions:

In the new City of Toronto, risk management procedures will come under greater scrutiny as the City moves to become self-insured.

The existence of 63 known old sites, of which approximately 38 have not been surveyed or remediated, is a significant potential risk to the City, city inhabitants and the environment.

Consideration of the historic topography of the old City of Toronto, compared to current land elevations, suggests that even more undocumented sites may exist.

An effective risk management program could deal with the known sites and provide a contingency plan (and some due-diligence) toward unknown sites and their associated risks.

To be successful, implementation of a City-wide old landfill site risk management program requires active participation and support from legal, insurance, real estate, facility, parks, works and emergency services, planning and building professionals from within the corporation.

Most, if not all, of this expertise collectively exists within the amalgamated staff of the City.

Council can choose from a number of recommended options to proactively deal with these risks. Implementation costs of existing programs are funded in the 1998 Capital Works Program. No funds have been allocated for expanding the existing survey and remediation programs to cover the whole of the City.

Contact Name:

John D. Minor, B.Sc., M.Sc.

Manager of Water Resources, Works and Emergency Services

Tel: 396-4949; Fax: 396-4156

E-mail: minor@city.scarborough.on.ca.

7

Tendering of Contract for Nine Hired Garbage Packers in

Scarborough Community Council Area

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the report dated May8, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested that the sub-committee established to discuss with the Union a strategy for tendering bulk lift waste collection contracts, include in its forthcoming report a process for facilitating bids by the Union on work that is being considered for contracting out.

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (May 8, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management:

Purpose:

To report on the results of discussions with CUPE Local 416 (368) as related to this matter and as directed by the Works and Utilities Committee at its meeting of March 25, 1998.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The approval of recommendations contained in this report will result in an estimated annual net saving of approximately $63,400.00 from the 1998 actual cost of nine contracted trucks. While one truck is being totally eliminated, the saving is largely offset by the new hourly rate for the remaining hired equipment, which has increased from the former range of $66.57 to $71.50 per hour to $75.99 per hour for all of the hired trucks. As the number of trucks will only be reduced for the second half of the year, the 1998 saving is further reduced to $31,700.00.

Sufficient funds are available in Scarborough's portion of the amalgamated Toronto operating budget to fund this service in 1998.

Recommendations:

(1)That three of the nine garbage packers traditionally contracted in the former City of Scarborough be eliminated as a contracted service with the expiry of the current contract on June 30, 1998;

(2)that the contracted service for six garbage packers and associated staff be reported to the Bid Committee for award to the low bidder;

(3)that two surplus City-owned garbage packers be placed into service effective July 2, 1998, to be operated by members of CUPE Local 416 (368); and

(4)that dependent upon the approval of Recommendations Nos. (1) to (3), the nine trucks previously in service be reduced to eight.

Background:

The Works and Utilities Committee meeting on March 25, 1998, had before it a report dated March3, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management. This report provided historical data on the use of hired garbage packers in the former City of Scarborough; advised that the current contract for this service will expire on June 30, 1998, and was in the process of being tendered; and recommended that the report be received for information.

The Committee received the aforementioned report and requested that:

(1)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services proceed with the tendering process, invite the Union to submit their proposal as part of that process, and submit a report to the Committee on whether the Union has expressed interest in bidding, and on the tender award;

(2)the tendering process permit bids by outside individuals based on the use of City-owned vehicles;

(3)the nine best vehicles be retained to ensure that there are sufficient vehicles in-house; and

(4)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services further report on the use of hired garbage packers elsewhere in the City.

Discussion:

For the past six years, management has worked closely with the former CUPE Local 368 Executive in a concerted and generally cooperative effort to make the services provided by Scarborough's Waste Management Division cost competitive with the private sector. In the area of waste collection we have succeeded. In 1997, the actual cost to collect garbage with the nine hired trucks, as provided by four independent contractors, ranged from $42.38 to $47.61 per tonne. Scarborough's cost using City staff was $46.70 per tonne. The contract cost includes $1.35 per tonne for staff supervision of the contract. The Scarborough cost is based on a loaded labour rate of $40.00 per hour which includes all overhead such as benefits, clothing, supervision and the provision of replacement staff during illness, vacation etc. In actual fact, 1997 staff productivity averaged 9.5 percent higher than that of the hired trucks but this saving was offset by the difference in the hourly rates.

At a meeting with the Union, the concept of them bidding on this work was discussed. It is the Union's position that it does not bid on City work. Notwithstanding, it is management's position that the interests of the tax payer can best be served by eliminating the two least productive hired trucks and replacing them with our own forces. As the trucks tendered are 25 cu. yd. tandem axle vehicles, the contractor(s) will be expected to attain the same productivity improvement that the City gained when converting to these larger vehicles. This will enable management to completely eliminate the need for one truck.

An inspection of the City's fleet of surplus garbage packers has revealed two units, in excess of our requirement for daily operational spare vehicles, that could be made operational with limited expense. As productivity improvements are introduced across the City, it is anticipated that newer units will become available.

The cost to operate six hired trucks in combination with two City vehicles is estimated at $1,216,145.00 for a full year. This estimate is based on the actual hours charged in 1997 and allowing for the improved productivity of the larger tandem vehicles. The actual cost in 1997 was $1,279,513.00. This represents an annual cost saving of approximately $63,400.00.

As directed by the Committee, bids were also requested for the provision of labour only with the intent that the contractor's staff would operate City equipment. Competitive bids were received ranging from $17.80 to $48.00 per hour. However, this method of operation is not considered a viable option. As an "arms length" relationship would not be maintained, these employees could be deemed employees of the City under the terms of the applicable collective agreement. Further, as they would be taking daily direction from City supervisors, our liability in the event of an injury would be greatly increased.

The Committee's request for a further report on the use of hired garbage packers elsewhere in the City has been complied with in the form of a staff report entitled "Procedures for Retendering Existing Contracts for Waste Collection and Provision of Opportunity for the City's Unionized Workers to Propose Having This Work Carried Out on an In-House Basis." This report dated April9, 1998, was submitted to Committee at its April 22, 1998 meeting and approved as submitted.

Conclusion:

Waste collection staff in the former City of Scarborough have worked diligently to reduce operating costs in realization and acceptance of the need to be competitive with the private sector. The reduction of hired garbage packers from nine to six will reward that effort while further reducing this year's operating costs by $31,700.00 from the 1997 level.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ron Gordon, Director, Solid Waste, Recycling and Fleet Services,

Scarborough Community Council Area, Phone: (416) 396-4771; Fax:(416) 396-4156

E-mail: gordon, Internet: gordon@city.scarborough.on.ca.

(Report dated March 3, 1998, addressed to the

Works and Utilities Committee from

the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management)

Purpose:

To provide historical data on the use of hired garbage packers in the former City of Scarborough, and to advise that the current contract for this service will expire on June 30, 1998, and is in the process of being tendered.

Funding Sources:

Funds have been provided in Scarborough's portion of the amalgamated Toronto operating budget for vehicle and operator service rental associated with garbage and yardwaste collection in the amounts of $1,100,000.00 and $50,000.00 respectively.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

The former City of Scarborough has contracted for the provision of hired garbage packers since 1953 when the first truck and operator was hired. The number of hired trucks has remained constant at nine since 1992. These vehicles are assigned on a daily basis and work in unison with City forces. Prior to 1992, the contracting of these services was done on a negotiated basis with the owner/operators. The trucks are currently provided by four independent contractors.

In 1992, the first formal contract was tendered to ensure that competitive pricing was being received. A three-year contract expiring on November 30, 1995, was subsequently awarded by Council. In negotiating a rate increase for 1995, all four of the contractors requested a two-year extension until November 30, 1997, in order to amortize their equipment over its full projected life. This extension was awarded by Council with the condition that prices would remain stable for its duration. A subsequent extension was granted until June 30, 1998, in order to help facilitate the amalgamation process.

The rate for these contracts currently ranges from a low of $66.57 per hour to a high of $71.50. For this amount we receive a garbage packer complete with a driver and labourer. The trucks vary in age and capacity, hence the variation in hourly rates.

Discussion:

The use of hired trucks working in tandem with the municipal fleet has proved very successful. On a typical day, these trucks constitute 31 percent of the fleet assigned to residential and commercial garbage collection in the Scarborough District. On occasions when tonnages are extremely high, the contractors are always willing and able to work the extra hours needed to get the garbage off the street.

The use of hired trucks allows staff to monitor and evaluate the performance of private sector versus municipal forces, while still maintaining total control of the operation. The infusion of contract workers into the work force has created a healthy and competitive environment in which both sectors are required to perform to a high standard.

Absenteeism is never an issue with the hired operators. If a contractor's employee is ill or on vacation, it is the contractor's responsibility to ensure that trained and competent staff are available to operate the vehicle.

Through the use of these contractors, the high cost of vehicle purchases and ongoing maintenance is avoided. To replace these nine trucks with City-owned vehicles would cost in excess of $1 million in capital costs alone.

The current tender calls for a three-year contract expiring on June 30, 2001, with an option for a two-year extension. This enables the contractors to amortize their equipment over a longer period and often results in lower pricing.

Conclusions:

While the total contracting of collection services would necessitate an ability to adjust to significant price fluctuations, the blending of City and contract forces creates an environment in which a low unit cost for garbage collection has proven to be both attainable and sustainable.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ron Gordon, Director, Solid Waste, Recycling and Fleet Services

Scarborough Community Council Area, Phone: (416) 396-4771; Fax: (416) 396-4156

E-mail: Gordon, Internet: gordon@city.scarborough.on.ca.

8

Forfeiture of Tender Deposit

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May14, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Water and Wastewater:

Purpose:

To provide full and final authority to the City of Toronto - Scarborough District, Works and Emergency Services Department staff representative to settle this case, if so advised by the City Solicitor, which is being referred to the Alternative Dispute Resolution Centre for a mediation session on June 25, 1998, at 2:00 p.m. between Cambridge Landscaping Inc. v. Scarborough.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Cambridge Landscaping Inc. is taking legal action against the City for repayment of their forfeiture of tender deposit in the amount of $62,597.00.

Subsequent to the award of Contract No. 2941 (Highland Creek Rehabilitation Project) to Cambridge Landscaping Inc., Scarborough Council directed that the tender deposit be forfeited as a result of the contractor's inability to obtain a 100 percent performance bond for this project.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the City of Toronto Council reconfirm the decision that Cambridge Landscaping Inc. forfeit the $62,597.00 tender deposit as a result of their inability to fulfill the terms of the contract, which recommendation was embodied in Report No. 13 of the Administrative Committee as adopted by Scarborough Council on June 24, 1997; and

(2)an appropriate staff representative from the Works and Emergency Services Department be directed to attend the Alternative Dispute Resolution Centre on June 25, 1998, at 2:00 p.m., and have full and final authority to settle the dispute, if so advised by the City Solicitor.

Council Reference/Background/History:

City of Scarborough Council awarded Contract No. 2941, Proposed Rehabilitation of Highland Creek (Markham Branch) from Highway 401 south to Markham Road, to Cambridge Landscaping Inc., the low bidder, at their submitted unit prices totalling $1,251,922.26 based on estimated quantities.

Cambridge Landscaping Inc. indicated that they were denied the 100 percent Performance Bond required for them to proceed with construction and were therefore unable to fulfill the terms of the contract.

Scarborough Council then directed staff to withdraw the award of Contract No. 2941 from Cambridge Landscaping Inc., and that the tender deposit of $62,597.00 be forfeited. Subsequently, the award of this contract was made to the second low bidder, Ron Robinson Limited, at their submitted unit prices totalling $1,910,007.09 based on estimated quantities.

The difference in total unit prices resulted in the City of Scarborough spending an additional $658,084.83 to construct this project. Further, the delay in construction start dates prevented completion of hydro seeding along the majority of exposed slopes prior to winter 1997/98, resulting in erosion and additional cost to the contract.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The contract requires that the contractor submit with the tender and contract, a tender deposit by way of certified cheque in the amount of five percent of the estimated tender price, or $150,000.00, whichever is less. The City will award the contract within thirty days from the date bids are opened, unless otherwise specified in the tender. Between the time period tenders are opened and the contract award is made, tenders cannot be withdrawn. If the contractor requests that the tender be withdrawn between this time period, or if upon being awarded the contract the contractor does not proceed to commence work within ten working days of formal notification to commence, the tender deposit is forfeited to the City as damages and not as a penalty.

Conclusions:

The tender document clearly outlines the instructions to bidders in submitting prices for City contracts. This policy is in place to ensure that the tender process is fair and equitable to all contractors and further protects the interests of the City.

It is recommended that an appropriate staff representative from the Works and Emergency Services Department attend the Alternative Dispute Resolution Centre on June 25, 1998, at 2:00 p.m. with full and final authority to settle this case, if so advised by the City Solicitor.

Contact Name:

R. T. Quinn, Director, Environmental Services, 396-7113, E-mail: rtquinn@city.scarborough.on.ca.

W. Adams, Director, Central Services, 396-7228, E-mail: @city.scarborough.on.ca.

9

Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Deep Lake Water Cooling Project.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having:

(1)received the following report;

(2)requested Councillor Dennis Fotinos, as Council's representative on the Toronto District Heating Corporation, and Councillor Jack Layton, as Council's representative on the Toronto-Hydro Electric Commission, to report periodically to the Works and Utilities Committee on the development and integration of the district cooling program within the new City, and that the aforementioned Councillors also consider strategies to involve the broader public; and

(3)requested the Environmental Task Force to develop options and recommendations which would phase out the use of the coal-fired facility at the Lakeview Generating Station to be replaced with sustainable energy strategies for the new City, and submit a report thereon to the Works and Utilities Committee:

(April 7, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Water and Wastewater providing an update on the status of the Deep Lake Water Cooling Project; advising that the innovative project is expected to have environmental and economic benefits to the City; further advising that a pre-design study and Class Environmental Assessment is underway to allow public input and confirm project viability while maintaining the security and integrity of the water supply system; and recommending that this report be received for information.

--------

The following persons appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Tony O'Donohue, President, Environmental Probe Ltd.;

-Mr. Greg Allen, Allen Kani & Associates, and submitted material with respect thereto;

-Ms. Lois Corbett, Toronto Atmospheric Fund, and submitted material with respect thereto;

-Mr. Alex Bystrin, President and Chief Executive Officer, Toronto District Heating Corporation; and

-Mr. Todd Wilcox, Vice-President - Sales, Toronto Hydro, and General Manager, Northwind Toronto.

(b)Ontario Clean Air Alliance.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having endorsed, in principle, the recommendations embodied in the following communication from the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, and having requested that the recommendations and membership be referred to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for a report to the Works and Utilities Committee, in a timely fashion, in conjunction with the report being prepared on anti-smog initiatives:

(i)(April 30, 1998) from Mr. Jack Gibbons, Chair, Ontario Clean Air Alliance, recommending that the City endorse the recommendation of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance that the Government of Ontario implement the following regulations with respect to all electricity generated or imported into Ontario:

"(1)greenhouse gas emission caps which stabilize, at 1990 levels, the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production or sale of electricity in Ontario by the year 2000, and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production or sale of electricity in Ontario by more than 10 percent, relative to 1990 levels, by 2005;

(2)sulphur dioxide emission caps which reduce the sulphur dioxide emissions associated with the production or sale of electricity in Ontario below 175kilotonnes per year;

(3)nitrogen oxide emission caps which reduce the nitrogen oxide emissions associated with the production or sale of electricity in Ontario below 38 kilotonnes per year; and

(4)air toxic emission caps which reduce the air toxic emissions associated with the production or sale of electricity in Ontario;"

further recommending that the City join the Alliance; and forwarding a copy of the Alliance's report entitled "Electricity Competition and Clean Air".

(ii)(December 23, 1997) from the former Metropolitan Clerk advising that the former Metropolitan Council at its meeting held on December 10 and 18, 1997, had before it a Motion by Councillor Layton, seconded by Councillor Chow, respecting the creation by the Government of Ontario of a competitive electricity market and endorsement of the recommendations of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance as outlined therein; and advising that Council referred the aforementioned Motion, together with a communication dated October 6, 1997, from the Chair, Ontario Clean Air Alliance, to the appropriate Standing Committee of the new City of Toronto Council, with a request that the Ontario Clean Air Alliance be invited to make a deputation to such Committee when this matter is considered.

--------

Mr. Jack Gibbons, Chair, Ontario Clean Air Alliance, appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(c)Beneficial Use of Main Treatment Plant's Processed

Biosolids and Termination of Incineration.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having:

(1)referred the following report dated May 15, 1998, back to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for revision in light of submissions and comments presented at the Works and Utilities Committee, with the following directions:

(i)that the report be revised to include optional recommendations for a one-year and a two-year phase-out of incineration;

(ii)that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to the Committee at its next meeting, scheduled to be held on June 17, 1998, on:

(a)expanded/new biosolids facilities at the Main and Humber Treatment Plants;

(b)the timing of a proposal call for such facilities this summer;

(c)including in the proposal call a one-to-two-year maximum build-out for the full operation of 100 percent beneficial use of biosolids;

(d) a cost/benefit analysis of odour containment on a long and short-term basis for the settlement tanks at the Main Treatment Plant;

(e)discussions with Consumers Gas respecting the matter of boiler capacity; and

(f)the utilization of the Humber and Highland Creek Treatment Plants;

(iii)that the results of equipment testing at the Harbour Remediation & Transfer Inc. site be presented at the next meeting of the Committee;

(iv)that the Biosolids Multi-stakeholder Committee referred to in Recommendation No. (10) of the aforementioned report be developed in consultation with the Ward Councillors for the area and the Chair of the Works and Utilities Committee, for consideration by the Committee at its next meeting;

(v)that the installation of digesters be reassessed in light of alternative strategies for biosolids management, and that a cost/benefit analysis be conducted in this regard;

(vi)that a solids train audit be conducted as recommended by Mr. Len Yust in his deputation, and that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report further to the Committee on the implementation of such an audit;

(vii)that the consultant to provide peer review for the Biosolids Multi-stakeholder Committee be selected to the satisfaction of the Committee as well as the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Administrative Officer; and

(viii)that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to provide to the Committee the additional information requested by Councillor Bossons;

(2)recommended to the Budget Committee that funding be provided in the amount of $400,000.00 for the retention of consultants or staff respecting the preparation of a Request for Proposals for the direct land application of biosolids from the Main Treatment Plant, and to provide peer review of the 100percent biosolids beneficial reuse implementation program, as recommended in Recommendations Nos. (9) and (11) of the report dated May15, 1998, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(3)further requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report to the Committee on the following motion submitted by Ms. Karey Shinn, Chair, Safe Sewage Committee:

"That Toronto Council, as the proponent of the Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment, submitted to the Ministry of the Environment in December 1997, under the old Metropolitan Council, submit the following amendment to the Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment:

'That plans to implement the 'preferred alternative' of 100 percent beneficial reuse of biosolids be understood to not request approval for replacement of existing incinerators with state-of-the-art equipment, either as a 'contingency' or for the day-to-day disposal of sludges at the Main Treatment Plant.'"; and

(4)referred all communications and submissions to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for consideration and report thereon to the Committee:

(i)(March 12, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding for information and any attention deemed necessary, Clause No.1 contained in Report No.2 of The Works and Utilities Committee, headed "Beneficial Use of Biosolids; Odour Containment and Termination of Incineration at Main Treatment Plant", which was adopted, as amended, by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on March4, 5 and6, 1998, wherein City Council amended this Clause, in part, by striking out and referring Recommendation No. (1) of the Works and Utilities Committee back to the Committee for further consideration and resubmission to the next regular meeting of Council to be held on Thursday, April16, 1998, viz.:

"(1)incineration at the Main Treatment Plant be stopped no later than January 1, 1999, and that the Interim Functional Lead for Water/Wastewater Operations be requested to report to the next meeting of the Committee, scheduled to be held on March 25, 1998, on the feasibility of such date;".

(ii)(May 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services recommending that:

(1)the Works and Utilities Committee endorse the preliminary three-year Water Pollution Control capital works budget, within the five-year capital works plan to be initiated in late summer or early fall 1998, in order to provide the necessary capital resources to provide capital funding through the municipal water rate, for the 100 percent biosolids beneficial re-use program and the ceasing of incineration at the Main Treatment Plant;

and further recommending that authority be given to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to:

(2)request proposals for the direct land application of up to 26,000 tonnes per year of biosolids from the Main Treatment Plant, over a five-year duration, with a program start date no later than 24 months following the contract(s) award. The request for proposals will require suppliers to identify winter storage needs and associated costs;

(3)expand the Harbour Remediation & Transfer Inc. contract, subject to successful demonstration of their plant's operating capability related to odour control;

(4)request proposals for back-up capacity at landfills currently licensed to receive and dispose of sewage sludge in order to avoid the need to use incineration as a back-up method;

(5)bring forward a recommendation to the Works and Utilities Committee for the award of a design/build contract for a permanent truck loading facility capable of handling 53,000 dry tonnes of biosolids per year at the Main Treatment Plant, to allow shipping of the plant's total biosolids production (in sludge cake form) within 24 months following the contract award;

(6)bring forward a recommendation to the Works and Utilities Committee for the award of a design/build contract for an odour control facility at the Main Treatment Plant, that is operational within 24 months of the contract award;

(7)bring forward a recommendation to the Works and Utilities Committee for the award of a design/build contract for a thermal drying facility at the Main Treatment Plant, sized to process up to 10,000 dry tonnes per year, and to award a five-year contract for the marketing of the production of the thermal drying facility;

(8)report on the associated business cases to replace the heat previously provided through incineration of sewage sludge through: (i) construction of a stand-alone boiler design and installation program; (ii) construction of co-generation facilities; (iii)participation in a co-operative district heating and electrical generation proposal with community partners that will meet the facility's heating requirements; and (iv)fire the existing incinerators with digester gas and/or natural gas to provide heat to the waste heat boilers;

(9)retain a consultant(s), satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Administrative Officer, to prepare the necessary Terms of Reference for Request for Proposals and design/build contracts listed above in Recommendations Nos. (2), (4), (5), (6), and (7), including the evaluation of Request for Proposals and design/build contract submissions, and to prepare business cases for the four options for the Main Treatment Plant's heating requirements, identified above in Recommendation No. (8), at a cost not to exceed $300,000.00 net after GST rebate;

(10)establish the Biosolids Multi-stakeholder Committee to facilitate ongoing involvement of citizens and other stakeholders in the development of a 100percent biosolids beneficial reuse program, to be chaired by an external public participation practitioner, at a cost not to exceed $50,000.00 net after GST rebate;

(11)retain a consulting firm, satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Administrative Officer in consultation with representatives of the Biosolids Multi-stakeholder Committee, to provide peer review of the 100 percent biosolids beneficial reuse implementation program, at a cost not to exceed $100,000.00 net after GST rebate; and

(12)the appropriate officials be authorized to give effect thereto.

(iii)(March 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services providing information on the feasibility of initiating 100 percent beneficial reuse of biosolids processed at the Main Treatment Plant (MTP) by January 1, 1999, as recommended by the Committee at its meeting on February 11, 1998, and outlining the related plan of action; and recommending continuation of a staged biosolids beneficial reuse program presently being developed, which has as its goal full beneficial implementation by the year 2005, as stated in the approved MTP Environmental Assessment document.

(iv)(April 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting the status of the beneficial utilization of the Main Treatment Plant's processed biosolids, as requested by the Committee at its meeting held on February 11, 1998.

(v)(April 7, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting measures being taken to ensure that odours are monitored and reduced, as requested by the Committee at its meeting on February 11, 1998, and reviewing the history and operational information related to the biosolids loading building at the Main Treatment Plant.

(vi)(April 6, 1998) from the Co-Chairs, Main Treatment Plant Neighbourhood Liaison Committee, advising that the Main Treatment Plant Liaison Committee met on March27, 1998; and expressing the Committee's full support for the implementation of the most expeditious plan possible to achieve 100 percent beneficial reuse of biosolids from the Main Treatment Plant, ending incineration.

(vii)(April 17, 1998) from Mr. Colin Lambert, National Director, Health & Safety Branch, Canadian Union of Public Employees, respecting the termination of incineration of sewage sludge at the Main Treatment Plant; and requesting the Committee to consider two main factors in its deliberations on this issue: firstly, that the Committee must be absolutely certain that the sewage sludge is not a hazardous waste; and secondly, that once the City's sewage is of sufficient quantity and can be considered for beneficial use, the Committee insist that the management of sewage sludge must be carried out by the public sector.

(viii)(April 20, 1998, and May 20, 1998) from Ms. Karey Shinn, Chair, Safe Sewage Committee, submitting the following draft motion:

"That Toronto Council, as the proponent of the Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment, submitted to the Ministry of the Environment in December 1997, under the old Metropolitan Council, submit the following amendment to the Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment.

'That plans to implement the 'preferred alternative' of 100 percent beneficial reuse of biosolids be understood to not request approval for replacement of existing incinerators with state-of-the-art equipment, either as a 'contingency' or for the day-to-day disposal of sludges at the Main Treatment Plant.'"

(ix)(April 21, 1998) from Ms. Margaret Blair, Lakeside Area Neighbourhoods Association, requesting that the Committee and Council adopt a 100 percent beneficial use plan which does not involve incineration, and the striking of a multi-stakeholder committee; and recommending as a long-term measure that staff be retrained in the latest technology for beneficial uses.

(x)(May 13, 1998) from Mr. Denis Casey, Acting President, Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 79, forwarding a submission by Mr. Jim Chisholm, Chair, Environment Committee, CUPE Local 79, and CUPE Local 79 Works Best Practices Program Coordinator, entitled "Precaution is Needed for Sewage Sludge Applications to Agricultural Land".

(xi)(May 19, 1998) from Dr. Stephen Connell, Toronto, Ontario, forwarding material with respect to the implementation of a 100 percent biosolids beneficial reuse program, including an article entitled "Use of Reclaimed Water and Sludge in Food Crop Production".

(xii)(May 19, 1998) from Dr. Stephen Connell, Toronto, Ontario, raising questions with respect to the implementation of a 100 percent biosolids beneficial reuse program at the Main Treatment Plant; and requesting that written answers be given to his questions.

(xii)(May 20, 1998) from Mr. Jody P. Amblard, President, Associated Industrial Controls Ltd., recommending that the Committee entertain proposals for the independent funding of a thermal drying facility by means of a project financing structure.

(xiii)(May 20, 1998) from Ms. Karen Buck, Co-Chair, Main Treatment Plant Neighbourhood Liaison Committee, submitting the comments and concerns of the Main Treatment Plant Neighbourhood Liaison Committee with respect to the report dated May 15, 1998, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

--------

The following persons gave a presentation to the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter, and filed a copy of such presentation:

-Mr. Lawson Oates, Manager, EA Co-ordination, Works and Emergency Services;

-Mr. Dick Kuchenrither, Black & Veatch; and

-Mr. R.M. Pickett, Director, Water Pollution Control Division, Works and Emergency Services.

The following persons also gave presentations to the Committee in response to the invitation of the Committee at its meeting on March 25, 1998:

-Mr. Len Yust, Consultant, and submitted material with respect thereto;

-Mr. Phil Sidhwa, President and Chief Executive Officer, Terratec Environmental Ltd., and submitted material with respect thereto;

-Mr. Peter T. Commerford, Manager, Dryer Systems, Andritz-Ruthner, Inc.;

-Mr. R. Laird Smith, Senior Vice President, Engineering Services, Philip Utilities Management Corporation, and Mr. Lyle Brenzil, Braemar Acres, and submitted material with respect thereto;

-Mr. Grant Mills, Vice President - Technology, and Mr. Ray Wallin, President, N-Viro Systems Canada Inc., and submitted material with respect thereto;

-Mr. Don Hoekstra, Prism Resource Management Limited;

-Mr. Ed Kroeker, Marketing Director, Thermo Tech Technologies Inc., and submitted material with respect thereto;

-Ms. Virginia Grace, New England Fertilizer Company, and submitted material with respect thereto; and

-Mr. Daniel Boulanger, Vice President, Sales and Marketing, Berlie Technologies Inc., and submitted material with respect thereto.

The following persons also appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Dr. Stephen Connell, Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Elizabeth Borek, Lakeside Area Neighbourhoods Association (LANA), and filed a submission with respect thereto; and

-Ms. Debra Kyles, Kleinburg, Ontario, and filed a submission with respect thereto.

(d)Legal Matter Respecting Waste Transport

and Disposal Contract with Browning-Ferris

Industries Group of Companies.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having received the following confidential report:

(March 18, 1998) from the City Solicitor respecting the waste transport and disposal contract with the Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI) group of companies.

(e)Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreement.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its next meeting, scheduled to be held on June 17, 1998, with a request that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services submit a report to such meeting on whether a clause can be inserted in Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements to permit the City to request companies to suspend discharging overstrength effluents at particular times:

(May 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services recommending that staff be authorized to enter into an Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreement with Canada Custom Slaughtering Inc., 2306 St. Clair Avenue West, under terms and conditions satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Respectfully submitted,

BETTY DISERO,

Chair

Toronto, May 20, 1998

(Report No. 5 of The Works and Utilities Committee was adopted, as amended, by City Council on June3, 4 and 5, 1998.)